Any source
Pro vs. con view
1031 arguments retrieved in 1.0 ms

PRO

  • PRO

    Instead, I will refute some of his most incorrect claims....

    Feminism

    Alright. This was destined to happen. With all of the Youtubers going on about the evils of feminism and liberalism, an echo chamber spawns, and people like my opponent are sucked in. Before I engage in this debate, I acknowledge that there are crazed high school students who dye their hair, and preach feminist ideology without having the correct knowledge to do so. It happens. But, no, I will not agree that it is the evil bane of modern life. I will argue that feminism is still important in the present day. Reading the comments, I get that I"m unlikely to win, so I"m just doing this in the the hopes of changing at least someone"s mind. Anyways, I would love to explain why a lot of the statistics my opponent has listed have complicated non-sexist reasoning, but I don't have the room for that. Instead, I will refute some of his most incorrect claims. "Men lose custody in 84% of divorces" Regardless of how accurate this statistic is, there are good reasons for why this may be the case. A comprehensive study of this was done by Cathy Meyer of the Huffington Post, and to quote it: "In 51 percent of custody cases, both parents agreed " on their own " that mom become the custodial parent. In 29 percent of custody cases, the decision was made without any third party involvement. In 11 percent of custody cases, the decision for mom to have custody was made during mediation. In 5 percent of custody cases, the issue was resolved after a custody evaluation. Only 4 percent of custody cases went to trial and of that 4 percent, only 1.5 percent completed custody litigation. In other words, 91 percent of child custody after divorce is decided with no interference from the family court system. How can there be a bias toward mothers when fewer than 4 percent of custody decisions are made by the Family Court? What do these statistics tell us? 1. Fathers are less involved in their children"s care during the marriage. 2. Fathers are less involved in their children"s lives after divorce. 3. Mothers gain custody because the vast majority of fathers choose to give them custody. 4. There is no Family Court bias in favor of mothers because very few fathers seek custody during divorce." So essentially, the majority of the time, the father is less involved in the raising of the child (particularly in a relationship that ends up in a divorce) and fewer fathers receive custody of their children, because they don't seek custody. Additionally, con has also made general statements without providing any statistics. "Males are discriminated against in school and University. -Boys face vastly more corporal punishment than girls." If my opponent wishes to make these statements, even the ones with provided statistics, it is his responsibility to leave sources and such. I have a strong suspicion con went onto this men"s rights website, which listed all of these stats with sourcing them. My opponent has only sourced one site, that I dare say look like it has a tiny bit of a bias. "77% of homicide victims are men." So this statistic really goes to show what side my opponent"s source is on. If you actually read the study, it states the following within it: " their risk of being killed by a spouse or intimate acquaintance was higher (RR = 1.23). In contrast to men, the killing of a woman by a stranger was rare (RR = 0.18). More than twice as many women were shot and killed by their husband or intimate acquaintance than were murdered by strangers using guns, knives, or any other means." I agree that there are issues in which men"s rights are important. This is one of those issues. However, even a study cited by a website called realsexism.com fails to run its length without mentioning a feminist issue. The 77% aspect of this also has likely complex factors which make it so. "40-70% of domestic violence is against men, however, less than 1% of domestic violence shelter spaces are for men" The problem here is, I couldn"t find this anywhere. The website you sourced also provides no link to prove this either, so it sounds like a load of crap to me. I could go on, but I am going to stop here so I can explain my opponent"s even further flawed reasoning. Currently, feminism is being mocked and scorned by many. What people who do this don"t realize, is that said high school student on Tumblr does not represent feminism as a whole. What anti-feminists will do is cherry pick certain uncommon instances where men have a disadvantage, and proceed to mock this strawman idea of a feminist rather than intellectual feminism. As you go deeper into the anti-feminist movement, you will see how quickly it turns into sexism. The actual intellectual side of feminism is what one should take as an example. Thus, I hope throughout this debate, that my opponent attempts to debunk issues widely believed by intellectual feminists instead of mocking silly-looking high school students. Before I get into that though, I fail to understand why listing men"s rights issues debunks feminism.While I think that the studies my opponent's source has referenced make a lot of simplifications and often stretch the real results I, again, accept that there are issues in which men have a disadvantage. This, however, does not mean feminism is a useless movement. I am willing to debate the wage gap with you. I mean, I hope it doesn"t become the main point of this debate, but I am willing to discuss it. In the next round, I will list some examples of women being disadvantaged in society, as my opponent has done with men. I hope we can have a rational debate, and gain some understanding of each other"s ideology. Source: https://www.huffingtonpost.com...

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Feminism/25/
    • score
      BM25 score: 22.95
      feminism: 22.95
      conclusion: 13.44 (boost 1.50, idf 5.97, tfNorm 1.50)
      premises: 7.58 (idf 5.90, tfNorm 1.28)
      sourceText: 1.93 (boost 0.20, idf 4.68, tfNorm 2.06)
  • PRO

    A misdemeanor conviction can lead to jail time of up to a...

    Feminism

    Murder is murder. When Cardi B committed her crimes against various men, Even though it was supposed to be a refreshing change of stereotype, She still needs to be charged for drugging, Raping and stealing from men. For Malik St. Hilaire, I did ask for a case outside of the "Me too" movement of rape accusations, But I will respond anyways because it is the last round. She is facing a year of prison time, Which is standard for misdemeanor fraud cases. "A misdemeanor conviction can lead to jail time of up to a year, Whereas felonies and federal fraud cases can involve years or even decades in prison. " -Reference. Com One of the accused said this in court: "I lost my scholarship, My dream of continuing to play football and now I am in debt $30, 000" -New York post. Unfortunately, This is the correct sentencing for misdemeanor fraud, Which was the fact that she told a single lie that ruined two kid's lives. If she had committed fraud involving bribery, Tax evasion, Or something else that made it into a felony, She would have gotten worse. The judge sentenced Nikki to the maximum possible time she could have gotten, And backlash has occurred. " is now getting sued by the men whose lives she almost destroyed. " -thegrio. Com So, To sum that up, Nikki got the maximum possible sentence for her crimes, And will face heavy repercussions. This is exactly the equality in justice that "A misdemeanor conviction can lead to jail time of up to a year, Whereas felonies and federal fraud cases can involve years or even decades in prison. " -Reference. Com One of the accused said this in court: "I lost my scholarship, My dream of continuing to play football and now I am in debt $30, 000" -New York post. Unfortunately, This is the correct sentencing for misdemeanor fraud, Which was the fact that she told a single lie that ruined two kid's lives. If she had committed fraud involving bribery, Tax evasion, Or something else that made it into a felony, She would have gotten worse. The judge sentenced Nikki to the maximum possible time she could have gotten, And backlash has occurred. " is now getting sued by the men whose lives she almost destroyed. " -thegrio. Com So, To sum that up, Nikki got the maximum possible sentence for her crimes, And will face heavy repercussions. This is exactly the equality in justice that If she had committed fraud involving bribery, Tax evasion, Or something else that made it into a felony, She would have gotten worse. The judge sentenced Nikki to the maximum possible time she could have gotten, And backlash has occurred. " is now getting sued by the men whose lives she almost destroyed. " -thegrio. Com So, To sum that up, Nikki got the maximum possible sentence for her crimes, And will face heavy repercussions. This is exactly the equality in justice that feminism fights for, At least indirectly. In conclusion, Not all parts of feminism is bad. The type that focuses more on egalitarianism and less on the idea that women are better than men is a just type, And should be supported. As a final note, Simply because some women are falsely accusing men of sexual abuse, Doesn't mean all are, And there are still many victims that need support towards their cause.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Feminism/34/
    • score
      BM25 score: 22.90
      feminism: 22.90
      conclusion: 13.44 (boost 1.50, idf 5.97, tfNorm 1.50)
      premises: 7.48 (idf 5.90, tfNorm 1.27)
      sourceText: 1.99 (boost 0.20, idf 4.68, tfNorm 2.12)
  • PRO

    BUT, wait it gets better, if the man confirms the...

    Feminism is not pointless

    I affirm "Resolved: Feminism is not pointless" Definitions: Feminism: the intellectual, philosophical and political discourse aimed at equal rights and legal protection for women (1) Discourse: formal discussion (2) Pointless: devoid of effectiveness (3) Observation 1: In order to keep debate fair, we must not deter to the philosophical concept that nothing has a "point", moreover it is important that we indeed accept the general cause for existence and action, hence the definition for "pointless". Besides, if nothing ever had a point to it, then logically nobody would ever be doing anything. I am just trying to avoid Chaos Theory argumentation. Observation 2: The resolution dictates that feminism is NOT pointless, meaning that the affirmative has the burden to prove said statement, and the negative must prove that feminism IS pointless. Because of this double negative topic, like all others, the burden of proof falls on the negative, as the default is that feminism is, in fact, not pointless. So, judges, keep in mind that you default AFF if the arguments wash, equal, or succeed (for the affirmative) Contention 1: "Feminism is just" As no resource is necessary to prove, women were the LAST minority to be given rights during the development of the US. African americans had their struggles with slavery, and later segregation, but ultimately the problem was solved with the granting of suffrage, unity and all other full and equal american rights to black...MALES. Women waited until the 1920's, JUST to receive their suffrage, and today they still remain absent of many rights not only in America, but ESPECIALLY across seas. Rape, discrimination, abuse and overall treatment like insects, is beyond plentiful foreign countries. An example of this is the middle-east, where things like temporary and arranged marriages are socially acceptable. Just a few days ago in Saudi Arabia, a woman was kidnapped by the son of her temporary fianc�e, raped, impregnated, beaten and kept prisoner for three years. When the man was arrested by INTERPOL, he was pending trial, however the trial cannot even be held unless the father of the abuser states that he had a relationship with this woman. BUT, wait it gets better, if the man confirms the relationship, his son gets full and complete custody of the children, if he doesn't, she is deported back to her country, where events like this are commonplace. (4) The point I am trying to make, and that any and all reasonable and moral persons will agree, is that women are less than or equal to men in societies eye at best. For this reason, it is just for any theory or organization to support the equality of all human beings, gender-blind. Contention 2: "Feminism is effective" It is clear that the feminism is effective because of how far women's rights have come over the years. Ages ago, women were treated like dirt worldwide. Tools for sex, tools for housework, tools for children. Nothing else. Until the feminist movement came along, and helped bring women closer to their goal of international human equality. Although some regions around the world still publicly and politically discriminate, massive amounts of progress has been made. I would hope that the example of US women would be enough, but to ensure my source points, look at the last couple of sources at the bottom of this text if you need more evidence (5-9). The impact of this contention is: Because we define "pointless" the way we do, having this insurmountable pile of evidence to prove that feminism is far from pointless ensures your vote for the affirmative. I apologize for not doing this earlier, but thank you so much for posting this debate. I love the topic and it's the best I've seen out of the challenge period right now, so I am honored to debate. (1) - http://en.wikipedia.org... (2) - http://en.wikipedia.org... (3) - http://www.merriam-webster.com... (4) - http://sandgetsinmyeyes.blogspot.com... (5) - http://www.guardian.co.uk... (6) - http://www.aclu-nj.org... (7) - http://www.thefreelibrary.com...'s+rights:+how+far+has+Namibia+come+in...-a0165807216 (8) - http://forum.japantoday.com... (9) - http://blog.aclu.org...

  • PRO

    It's not that defined in males. ... Thank you for...

    Humanism > Feminism

    Good day, reader! As you can see, this debate is about how Humanism is a better and overall more morally just ideology then Feminism. I make this claim considering myself as a humanist and someone who particularly doesn't like the modern-day feminist actions or some of their ideals. I constantly find myself while arguing with them to say this or something along these lines: "So, you think that men need to be taught not to rape? How about, not teach ANYONE to rape? Both genders can rape. All races can rape. All sexual orientations can rape. It's not that defined in males. Don't you think it would be a better alternative to explain why rape is morally unjust to EVERYONE? So everyone can then understand that?" Because that's how I honestly think about it. Humanism is an ideology I think that is more fitting, but also because in Humanism, skeptical inquiry and criticism are beyond welcome. Feminism seems to just let a lot fly as long as it goes under the banner of feminism. Just this morning I saw a debate that said "Men accused of rape should be castrated." Not even proven to have raped, just ACCUSED. That's just making whoever is accused guilty until proven innocent and, need I mention that is a harsh punishment? I feel its sad I have to show why this is wrong, but while we're at it lets make the death penalty for people ACCUSED of murder. Moving on. I won't go in deep, but that is my general claim. Humanism is a better ideology to possess then Feminism because it has an open mind, it is open to free criticism, in Feminism most people I've seen who oppose the movement are instantly labeled misogynists, and it covers the philosophies and issues of all races, genders and sexual orientations out there. It tries to say that humanity is equal, and we need to put aside our differences and realize that all of us individually have our own prejudices for whoever we are. And instead of placing the blame on others, we need to place the blame on ourselves and be responsible, striving to teach and educate on why in the vast and strange reality we live in, we at least need to accept each other. Life is one big team effort. Thank you for reading, and good luck.

  • PRO

    Finally, I would like to address body image. ......

    Feminism

    "Modern feminism is harmful for many reasons. The first hint at this is the prefix "Fem", or about women. Not about men, because feminism doesn't care about inequality towards men." Well, there has been many times in history where women have been treated unfairly. There has not been any need for manism, (or whatever you call it), as men have been dominant throughout history. I do not believe there has been a time in history where women ruled but men were treated unfairly. (There has likely been small situations like that, though.) "Now, I would like to address the issue of the "wage gap". The wage gap of 77% was a statistic measured many years ago. This is just assuming this statistic is true, which I don't think it is." There is a pay gap, because typically men choose the jobs that pay more while women choose the jobs that pay less. "Next I would like to address the issue of domestic violence. Is domestic violence against women a problem? Yes. Of course it is. However, statistics have pointed out that close to 40% of domestic violence victims are men. Little to no attention has been given to this issue" Although there has been domestic violence against men before, there is mostly violence against females, thus why it is the focus. But I must say we should also pay attention to the violence against men, that is not good at all. "Finally, I would like to address body image. Are women pressured to stay thin? As with domestic violence, yes. They are. But, again, so are men." Yes. But once again, it mainly affects women, thus why it is the focus. But I cannot agree with their suffering either. Although, if men have so many problems, than why do they not try to make it known like the women do? Or at least get help? :/

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Feminism/6/
    • score
      BM25 score: 22.86
      feminism: 22.86
      conclusion: 13.44 (boost 1.50, idf 5.97, tfNorm 1.50)
      premises: 7.48 (idf 5.90, tfNorm 1.27)
      sourceText: 1.95 (boost 0.20, idf 4.68, tfNorm 2.08)
  • PRO

    When I am talking about how western feminism "has...

    Western feminism has failed

    When I am talking about how western feminism "has failed", I am talking about modern-day feminism. I was not arguing that it has failed in the sense of its original goal. Women now have equal rights, but feminism is still here. It seems to have been repurposed, and that is what has failed about it.

  • PRO

    I understand that a lot of "feminists" are using this...

    Feminism is still necessary today

    As a feminist, I completely disagree. I understand that a lot of "feminists" are using this term as a weapon against men but that's not what we're about. I understand that a lot of "feminists" are using this term as a weapon against men but that's not what we're about. Feminism is about equality for men and women, women are above men in some things and men are above women in other situations, feminism wants men and women to be equal on all levels. Feminism IS NOT about degrading anyone, it's about equality.

  • PRO

    I would like to say that this was my first debate upon...

    Feminism Is Cancer

    I would like to say that this was my first debate upon this website, so I was not sure if I was the one with the starting argument, or if I was only to introduce a topic, my apologies. Since I was not descriptive enough in my opener I will now try to be more specific. I do not advocate the inequality between a males and females. I admire forms of feminism that are against genuine abuse, disempowerment, and exploitation. Western feminism in my opinion seems to be shrouded in a passive-aggressive "all bark no bite" resentment that criticizes women for embracing their femininity, disdains them for using their sexuality and bullies them into feeling weak and oppressed for choosing to be housewives, caretakers and full time mothers. I have found myself despising the majority of this movement because it is filled with hypocrisy and only see what they want to see. I have been in debates where common sense and logic was useless with them. Feminists state that men and women are identical when it comes down to the brain, but many feminists also support LGBT (transexuals specifically). This itself is contradictory because a transexual emotionally and psychologically feels that they belong to the opposite sex, but how can you support this, and support the opinion that men and women are identical, and that society has made them different? I feel as if feminists are fueled by their hatred of white men. Many females at my college are feminists and tbh feminism has ruined relationships I have had with people. There are imbalances with both genders but feminism never seems to talk about the imbalances that men have. And to respond to your comment, my username represents my love for a journalist by the name of Milo Yiannopoulos, if you do so choose to look him up, then you could understand why I adore him!!

  • PRO

    Yes, those activists want equality at the core, but the...

    Feminism is relevant

    "If the anti racism movement were about equality, it would be called equalism." "If the disability rights community wanted equality, it would be called equalism." "If gay rights activists wanted equality, they would call themselves equalists." Can you see how vapid those sound? Yes, those activists want equality at the core, but the name of their activism (gay rights, disability rights, anti racism, feminism) tell specifically which group they fight for. Feminism is an ideology of women's injustices being dissolved. So here's the main biggies on why feminism is relevant: Slut shaming: a woman who sucks off four guys at a party is ridiculed and seen as disrespecting herself, whereas a guy who gets sucked off by four girls get respect by default. Sex is assumed to be for the pleasure of a man. Male sexual desire is considred normal, whereas a girl's is taboo, naughty, filthy. This world needs to know that nothing is wrong with being a slut, and that it doesn't negate intelligence or worthiness of respect. Hyperattractivization - Beauty is considered the main aspect of a woman's worth. While an actor can be ugly (like Danny DeVito) and still be popular and respected, female actresses tend to be selected for their attractiveness toward straight men and are always made to be prettied-up. Media outlets comment on women's looks, but not on men's. Living in the Las Vegas metro area, I've seen billboards for male attorneys making them look respectable and typical (and it's okay if they're ugly or old), but billboards for female attorneys put a bunch of makeup and stylish-looking skirts and high heels on them, putting them in stereotypically attractive poses. Despite Hillary Clinton's high-profile achievements, articles still spring up about her clothes and hari--never happens to her male equivalents. Female Supreme Court justices are called ugly hags--never happens to their male equivalents. I've found that my attractiveness speaks louder than my voice, and while it's not considered weird for a "hot" guy to be also smart, it strikes people quite oddly when they see me (conventionally attractive) getting high academic achievement awards and having a higher IQ than that of Einstein. That's why I feel we need Yes, those activists want equality at the core, but the name of their activism (gay rights, disability rights, anti racism, feminism) tell specifically which group they fight for. Feminism is an ideology of women's injustices being dissolved. So here's the main biggies on why feminism is relevant: Slut shaming: a woman who sucks off four guys at a party is ridiculed and seen as disrespecting herself, whereas a guy who gets sucked off by four girls get respect by default. Sex is assumed to be for the pleasure of a man. Male sexual desire is considred normal, whereas a girl's is taboo, naughty, filthy. This world needs to know that nothing is wrong with being a slut, and that it doesn't negate intelligence or worthiness of respect. Hyperattractivization - Beauty is considered the main aspect of a woman's worth. While an actor can be ugly (like Danny DeVito) and still be popular and respected, female actresses tend to be selected for their attractiveness toward straight men and are always made to be prettied-up. Media outlets comment on women's looks, but not on men's. Living in the Las Vegas metro area, I've seen billboards for male attorneys making them look respectable and typical (and it's okay if they're ugly or old), but billboards for female attorneys put a bunch of makeup and stylish-looking skirts and high heels on them, putting them in stereotypically attractive poses. Despite Hillary Clinton's high-profile achievements, articles still spring up about her clothes and hari--never happens to her male equivalents. Female Supreme Court justices are called ugly hags--never happens to their male equivalents. I've found that my attractiveness speaks louder than my voice, and while it's not considered weird for a "hot" guy to be also smart, it strikes people quite oddly when they see me (conventionally attractive) getting high academic achievement awards and having a higher IQ than that of Einstein. That's why I feel we need feminism. Women aren't viewed equally. Their gender is considered a defining, categorizing aspect, not just another ancillary aspect such as height or eye color. Saying that feminism is female supremacism just because of the title is as facile as assuming Libertarians are fetishists of the Statue of Liberty.

CON

  • CON

    These women have created vile and detestable things such...

    Feminism is not pointless

    I thank Charlie_Danger for accepting. Feminism has created a breed of women known as Feminazis. These women create vile double standards about men and how they should be treated in regards to women. These women have created vile and detestable things such as: The stitch and bi*ch Changing wife beaters to "white" beater and truly the list goes on. Feminism is pointless because it is no longer accomplishing the goals it set out to. We now just have a bunch of short haired women who yell about how men should be castrated and that chivalry is dead.

  • CON

    I am not going to go into extensive details on quotes and...

    Modern Feminism

    Your argument saying that it's basically okay to want female superiority, does in fact show that modern feminists are BAD! I am not going to go into extensive details on quotes and such but 1. The wage gap is a myth created to divide us as a people. 2. The difference between Hillary and Sarah is that Hillary is a democrat and known for living off other peoples money and Sarah is a hard working republican. Modern feminism, once again, wants EVERYTHING handed to them. Real feminism wants a CHANCE (which they have equally) to be successful and want to earn everything they are given. Thank you.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Modern-Feminism/2/
    • score
      BM25 score: 23.06
      feminism: 23.06
      conclusion: 11.41 (boost 1.50, idf 5.97, tfNorm 1.27)
      premises: 9.68 (idf 5.90, tfNorm 1.64)
      sourceText: 1.97 (boost 0.20, idf 4.68, tfNorm 2.11)
  • CON

    However, that is not the case. ... They are taught that...

    Feminism is cancer of contemporary society

    Feminism is not encouraging hate against men, its main goal is to help bring women equal to men. The debate is the fact that men are scared that they are going to lose their rights as women gain theirs. However, that is not the case. Feminism is not ignoring the issues men have faced - they are focusing more on the fact that women are a discriminated majority. In todays society feminism is a must. Everyday women are being discriminated against without them even knowing. Girls grow up knowing its safer to give a guy a FAKE phone number than to turn it down.... Yeah nothing is wrong there. They are taught that its better to tell a guy you have a boyfriends then to say you're not interested. Women are oppressed, feminism is not the victimization of women, it is a movement to empower people to define, establish, and defend equal political, economic, cultural, and social rights for women. Radical feminists who attack men and wish to be superior are not true feminists. It is beneficial to both genders. Those who believe feminism is a movement that discriminates men have not been exposed to genuine feminism.

  • CON

    But when you made your first statement, "that feminism is...

    Feminism is cancer

    Who knows, if you win that's fine with me, but I am not feminist and I am not against it . But when you made your first statement, "that But when you made your first statement, "that feminism is cancer." You're trying to give me point that kind of makes no sense in my opinion, but I could give you a chance, so you can explain your opposition to Feminsim. So let's get to the basics, feminism is an advocacy for woman's rights and believes in the equality for both sexes. Now it's your turn to bash me all you want for the sake of this debate.

  • CON

    But for this debate, we are talking about the necessity...

    Modern Feminism is Necessary

    Dietorangesoda and I have talked before about the necessity of feminism in the west, and have happily agreed to have a debate about it! So here we are now. For the sake of this debate, we have agreed that we will only refer to feminism in America and Canada. I'm more than happy to agree that feminism (or a form of women's/human rights movements) are needed in many parts of the world, especially developing countries. But for this debate, we are talking about the necessity of feminism in USA and Canada. I don't believe feminism is necessary anymore, as women are treated equally (arguably better than men in many cases), and there is no systematic sexism/discrimination against them. Obviously Dietorangesoda disagrees with this. Let me point out that the definition of feminism has little to no impact on this debate, as it's the actions and reasons behind those actions that represent a movement/community. So without further ado, let's get on with this. I'll allow Dietorangesoda to present her opening arguments, I'll argue against them in R2 and bring up my own arguments, and we'll continue this all the way to the end. Thanks, Dietorangesoda, for accepting this in advance and hopefully we'll have a great debate! :)

  • CON

    If we are to take Christianity at face value, and look...

    Feminism is not sexist.

    I would like to thank my opponent for their rebuttals. Issue with the Definition? To begin, I shall address my issue with PRO's use of the definition of Feminism; I made no accusations, I simply pointed out a fact. As mentioned in my Rebuttals, I made the point that PRO has neglected the first clause of the definition. This clause is crucial to my arguments as to why Feminism is sexist. "Advocacy [or support thereof] of women's rights" (emphasis added). PRO does not take this into account. The reason why this is crucial to my arguments, and truly this whole debate, is that it leads to the support of laws that are made to support women's rights. Such things as protection under the law and voting are some rights that can be, and have been, advocated for. As such, they fall into the realm of "feminism", and if the grounds for feminism is equal rights, then it should not be the case that A) primary aggressor laws disporportionately affect men, and B) that women are not subject to compulsory public service, as men are, in order to gain the right to vote. My opponent effectively drops this argument, instead relying upon the second clause "on the grounds of the equality of the sexes". Why is this problematic? It takes away the fact that it is the advocacy of women's rights that Feminists advocate for, per the definition. It is not the fact that PRO uses the definition that is an issue, it is the fact that PRO fails to utilize the entire definition. PRO argues that advocating for policy X is not sexist, but neglects the grounds upon which those laws were put in place. I mentioned these in my arguments, and PRO does not address them. I agree that we are addressing the IDEA of feminism, however, rather than argue that the focus of Feminism on women's rights specifically is sexist, i chose to argue that the laws that are supported in order to give women equal rights in America is sexist. This would be similar to stating that "Christianity is homophobic." While there are some Christians who are not so, the dominant nature of Christianity, as a religion, as an IDEA, is against homosexual activity. The Christian Bible calls such things "abominations" [2]. If we are to take Christianity at face value, and look solely at what the religion, or belief if you prefer, puts out, through the documents that are in support of it, or supported by it. PRO's Analogy Pro's analogy seems very weak to me. To compare Atheism, an ideology based on disbelief or lack of belief, to Feminism, an ideology based on advocacy (or support thereof) of rights, does not create a strong analogy. This would be similar to comparing the Civil Rights Movement (henceforth CRM) to Atheism. The basis of the CRM was to give African-Americans various rights that they previously did not have, but that "whites" at the time did. Atheism, being an ideology based on lack of belief, or disbelief, does not compare in a strong way. What do atheists advocate for that is definitive of atheism? What advocacy do atheists support that is definitive of atheism? Perhaps the only thing that could be argued here, in relation to advocacy, would be a removal of religion from major institutions. This might be considered advocacy on behalf of rights, insofar as freedom of (and from) religion is concerned. However, this is not a crucial part of the atheist position. Some atheists may be opposed to this idea, and might prefer religion to be permitted everywhere, as this is freedom of religion. None of this is crucial to the position. Again, PRO is, whether on purpose or accidentally, neglecting the first clause of the definition, which specifically states that feminists, in any strain imaginable, at the very least support the advocacy of women's rights. PRO's analogy does not display a connection between feminism and atheism. PRO then provides us with a straw-man of my argument. Support of laws based upon advocacy of women's rights and violence based on atheism are not comparable, specifically because violence is not an intergral part of the atheist position. We could not argue that Christianity, as a religion, supports same-sex marriage because some Christians support it. That is not an intergral part of Christian Theology, however, we could argue that Christianity is homophobic, or at least discriminatory against homosexual persons. For this analogy to be strong, it would have to compare such things as Abolitionism and the CRM to Feminism, as such things have advocacy and action as key components of the ideology. PRO's Rebuttals PRO tries rebuts my arguments by attempting to argue that since Feminism does not support the VAWA, it cannot be sexist. If the VAWA specifically targets men as the perpatrators of domestic violence and makes women the victims, it becomes biased. As such, given that it is biased against men, and toward women, it is sexist. PRO states that they would have to do more research to determine this, however, I have provided sources for this assertion. PRO says that "[The VAWA] is absolutely irrelavent to the topic of this debate..." Feminism is indeed not the "support of the VAWA", however, feminism is the support of women's rights, and the VAWA is supposed to be a law, or policy, that intends to ensure that women's rights are protected, or rather, ensured. PRO also drops my points regarding sexual violence. In relation to the Draft and Selective service, again, my opponent brings up Atheism. "...is atheism sexist?" Once again, my opponent conflates belief and action. Atheism is an ideology based on though, Feminism is an ideology based on action or support thereof. I did not argue that feminism was sexist for allowing the law to come into place, as the law was already in place, what I am arguing is that the "right to vote" is unfairly granted to women, essentially free of charge, whereas a man can have this right revoked due to failure to sign up for Selective Service. The argument is not for prevention of the law, the argument is against misapplication of rights. If atheists were to advocate for special spaces, wherein they could discuss science and philosophy with free-of-charge food given to them by the government, but Christians were not given free-of-charge food by the government, this would be discrimination. Another example: If I am in a store and purchase a $1 product, then pay $1.10 for it, I would assume we had a 10% sales tax. If the person behind me buys the exact same product, but only pays $1.01, there is something going on. If I ask the cashier why the other individual only had to pay 1% in sales tax, and I am told that the 10% sales tax only applies to men, and the other person was a woman, that would be discrimination, as the sole reason this individual had to pay the 1% sales tax is that they are a woman, and I am a man. The same applies to the Draft, Selctive Service, and even sexual violence laws. PRO's remaining arguments are either qoute-mined, or carry no support, and shall not be addressed. I have no CX Question for my opponent. [1] http://www.scholastic.com...; [2] http://skepticsannotatedbible.com...

  • CON

    In the source, she brings up that after mixing in...

    Feminism: Positive or Negative

    I find the maxim "All people, regardless of gender, race, age, sexuality, should be held equal under law" to be worth ignoring. Under the law men and women are generally equal, so this maxim is irrelevant. I was trying to think of examples most feminists bring up as an argument towards this. One example is gender pay gap. The ever-changing wage gap has many fallisices (see this source: http://dft.ba...). The point here is that there is barely any wage inequality. But by focusing their outrage into a tidy, misleading statistic, feminists have become jaded. In the source, she brings up that after mixing in different variables, a women makes 91 cents to a man, even then there are other undiscussed variables like maternity leave among others. Plus I am not sure 9 cents is something to throw a hissy fit over. Now I will move on to "a feminist is not feminism". I am not mixing them, but rather doing the opposite. I clearly said I was talking about radical feminism. Because by going with regular feminists who just want equality for all sexes, it's hard to think who disagrees with that. The basis of In the source, she brings up that after mixing in different variables, a women makes 91 cents to a man, even then there are other undiscussed variables like maternity leave among others. Plus I am not sure 9 cents is something to throw a hissy fit over. Now I will move on to "a feminist is not feminism". I am not mixing them, but rather doing the opposite. I clearly said I was talking about radical feminism. Because by going with regular feminists who just want equality for all sexes, it's hard to think who disagrees with that. The basis of feminism is almost unarguable from my point of view, because I want equality for both sexes. That is why I am going by the radical feminist point of view, because that is something I strongly disagree with. Here is an excerpt from the wikipedia page of radical feminism: "A common criticism against feminism on the internet argues that radical feminism promotes a victim mentality amongst young women, inciting protests against events that have little to do with feminism. Susannah Breslin, a Forbes contributor wrote "Feminism claims to be about empowerment. In fact, over the years, it has increasingly devoted itself to promoting the image of women as victims. Victims of men. Victims of pop culture. Victims of sexism. Victims of discrimination. Victims of other women."

  • CON

    I mean, for example, you go to play a game such as Battle...

    Feminism is Wrong

    You are correct. I'm stating reasons as to why I believe in feminism. No, I am not a strong feminist. I just believe in the rights of man and woman. I mean, for example, you go to play a game such as Battle of The Sexes. Then, you notice how sexist to both genders it really is. That's the type of stuff I promote to fight for. "Now feminism is nothing but making women superior." In some cases, it is. But in most cases over 60 percent of people don't even want anything but to be equal to men. http://www.huffingtonpost.com... . If you don't believe me there's an article. " There are many feminists who are outright man haters (Andrea Dworkin) ." Yes, but do you even know how many women/men are even feminists? less than 30 percent. https://www.washingtonpost.com... . However, women who want to be superior to men are NOT feminist, that is actually called Misandry, the hatred of men Look in to many reasons. Don't judge off the first thing you see. Feminism is the equality of the sexes. Thank you for this debate. Hope to see you in another debate.

  • CON

    I would be glad to address all forms of discrimination in...

    Feminism is not an ideology of equality

    "I fail to see the point of providing definitions for terms that are generally clear, because I assume that most people are educated, intelligent human beings who know what words mean. Until they prove me otherwise." I have provided a dictionary definition. I would assume that that is the first place to look for "what words mean". "You're right. Demanding equality can mean that one party is inferior to another, and the superior wants to be placed in the same category as the inferior. The problem there is that that is not feminism. That's called humanism, or more accurately, egalitarianism, which is generally included in the beliefs of most humanists, like myself." I agree, except for the "that is not feminism" part. Feminism is a part of egalitarianism. Egalitarianism is equality for everyone, Feminism is equality for men & women. You can be feminist without being egalitarian, but you can't be egalitarian without being a feminist. "Why don't we stop inventing seperate [sic] categories for a universal problem and start addressing the issue as a cohesive unit?" The debate is not called "should we address different types of discrimination separately?" I would be glad to address all forms of discrimination in one unit, but that does not mean feminism is not a philosophy of equality. "Feminism is the idea that we can make both sexes equal by focusing solely on the issues of one of them." I already gave you the definition of feminism, and from a dictionary. It has nothing to do with giving one side more attention. Show me a reputable source saying that this is the DEFINITION of feminism, and I might be willing to accept it.

  • CON

    I'd like to start by summarizing what I and many other...

    Third Wave Feminism is unnecessary

    I'd like to start by summarizing what I and many other feminists find to be the purposes of the waves: So, First wave feminism was about basic civil rights. Second wave feminism was generally focused on complete equal rights. Third wave feminism is about equal treatment of both sexes. It is undeniably true that men and women have equal rights. I will admit that much. However, It would be a complete and utter lie to say that men and women are treated equally, And equality of treatment is what third wave feminism is all about. I would like to add that equality of treatment means equality of opportunity, Not equality of outcome. A brief look at statistics (which I can procure if you wish) shows that men and women are far from equal. Men are more likely to commit suicide. Women are more likely to be murdered. Men are more likely to become homeless. Women are less likely to become politicians. Third wave feminism seeks to close these gaps, And that is why it is necessary. Women are abused, Segregated and oppressed in many third world countries. Female genital mutilation is legal in most of these countries. Women are stuck in arranged marriages, Little more than payment. Third wave feminism seeks to end that, And that is why it is necessary. Note: A lot of people have their view of feminism tainted by hardcore Social Justice Warriors, That many love to portray as the archetypal feminist. The latter is an immature practice as old as the feminist movement itself, The former are not feminists. They believe in the superiority of women, Which goes against 'men and women should be equal', The core belief of feminism.